From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Thu Oct 11 14:50:12 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-members); Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:50:12 -0700 (PDT) Received: from rv-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.198.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from ) id 1Ig5uy-0000VY-0q for llg-members@lojban.org; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:50:11 -0700 Received: by rv-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id b22so595373rvf for ; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:58 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=jxMNOS9Mj83R68ZLNZ0TCrqNLFxs5+clIcCnHN9Wz4k=; b=HKN9+BAQwjwb9ODXqhBJlsQi4vBFihl+Tr97glA//ZOXzddUz4CbaS8dKwCYSh1qgOrmYTypeke2s/hI9Belqsxa9KlFxjxybqlpUolSNxMysWArjw3meZWubLlFsIqeBBOs3CWFSxZ+aVIOJ+BF51AxDUGkBkXk4af8oGFPgu0= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=RR5M6i1RNqfhUDizxDV4KGxEWvuIrkYeFuGA4i1gJbfXYtdvmhNbJTlafqlxXmdIjOVWxc7MSwgUnYZMAmIlprcjAtCcRP5I3SKIji4ATH2hOC5dGWNqgI3jrb4OprXkFTtjloSsQOfjm2bfbcY4iawECgqjDDFfmrcYU1Elnf0= Received: by 10.114.157.1 with SMTP id f1mr2705527wae.1192139397780; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.115.16.20 with HTTP; Thu, 11 Oct 2007 14:49:57 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Oct 2007 17:49:57 -0400 From: "Matt Arnold" To: llg-members@lojban.org Subject: [llg-members] Re: LLG AGM 2007: New Business In-Reply-To: <20071011212917.GY13890@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20070918181955.GW10667@nvg.org> <20071010000942.GZ10376@digitalkingdom.org> <20071011190654.GO13890@digitalkingdom.org> <470E9480.3000307@lojban.org> <20071011212917.GY13890@digitalkingdom.org> X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 374 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-members-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-members@lojban.org X-list: llg-members On 10/11/07, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Thu, Oct 11, 2007 at 05:24:16PM -0400, Bob LeChevalier wrote: > > While that has been my past stance, I note that it's a completely > useless thing to say to a newbie. It's also a rather annoying > assertion coming from you. (le'o cu'i) > > > If we start adopting things piecemeal by membership vote then > > I don't think we should; I think this is a singular case. > > The BPFK *is* an LLG committee; it even has to get its final > decision ratified by the membership. But yes, I see your point. > > > 2) It sets a precedent for going around the byfy, > > Erm. > > The BPFK has already voted 11 to 0 on this. (Yes, I'm aware the > BPFK isn't done yet, I'm just saying). > > > That being said, I will offer a substitute motion that I could > > support, because of its nonbinding nature. "... that it is the > > sense of the LLG membership that xorlo should be adopted by the > > byfy, and that it is the sense of the membership that the > > self-consistent use of either xorlo or the CLL standard by members > > of the community, pending a final decision by the byfy, should not > > be considered incorrect and subject to correction". > > Awfully fence-sitting, but certainly better than the status quo. > > > I will say honestly that I have avoided giving much thought to > > xorlo. I avoided the byfy discussion because it was too time > > consuming and contentious. I have not learned it, and I have not > > tried to use it. > > Yes, but you don't speak the language anyways. (le'o cu'i sai) > > -Robin > This proposal is (or if not, should be) a vote to make this completed part of the BPFK's work official before the rest of the BPFK's work. The BPFK is nearly as much on board with xorlo as it is possible to get them to agree on anything ever. The only thing that we would gain by holding off on this would be to hold up the principle that we have to wait until the BPFK is _completely_ done refining the _entire_ language. I reject that as bureaucratic stuff and nonsense. If there were any issues which should be voted in piecemeal, they are xorlo and the Dot Side. The Dot Side is much less universally accepted and I am comfortable not deciding that in this meeting. But these two issues are harming new Lojban adoption in a visible way. Robin has been referring to IRC evidence, but I have observed this repeatedly in info@lojban.org emails that I have fielded. xorlo is already Lojban in every sense that matters. Any statement to the contrary rejects the long-established vividly-expressed will of the active Lojban community, for the sake of a Legislatosaurus. We must take pro-xorlo action and we must take it now. -Eppcott